The lock-and-key mechanisms of the internal genitalia of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera): How are they selected for?

In the Noctuidae, the owlet moths, the internal genitalia, i.e. the aedeagus and vesica (penis) in the males, and the bursa copulatrix in the females, together form a lock-and-key mechanism (LKM). The species-specific structures have their counterparts in the opposite sex. The internal LKM constitutes a specific reproductive isolation mechanism (lock-and-key hypothesis), which seem to be the rule in the ditrysian Lepidoptera, and also occurs in the Carabidae (Coleoptera) and some other insects. In contrast, the external genitalia rarely have species-specific counterparts in the sexes. Several results indicate the presence of LKMs: In the Noctuidae, (1) heterospecific differences in the male vesica may prevent sperm transfer or lead to mechanical failure during copulation, (2) the more complicated the specific genitalia structures, the more aberrations may occur even in conspecific copulations, and (3) in many species pairs and groups, and in one large genus, Apamea, the structures in the opposite sexes show a strictly specific correspondence, but, (4) when there is precopulatory isolation due to differences in pheromone production or perception, the internal genitalia may be identical. Conversely, in the Colias butterflies (Pieridae), (5) frequent heterospecific hybridization is associated with the similarity of the internal genitalia. The LKMs seem to protect genomes against alien genes, supposedly selected for because of the lower fitness of specimens with an imprecise LKM and/or inferiority of hybrids. In the literature, the diversity of the noctuid genitalia has been ascribed to sexual selection, because the females were classified as polyandrous. Most species produce the main part of their eggs monandrously, and remate, if at all, in their old age, and are thus successively monandrous and polyandrous. The allopatric divergence in the structure of the internal genitalia of 39 Holarctic pairs of sister species of Noctuidae is suggested to be due to genetic drift. The insecure function of the female pheromones and external genitalia of males are illustrated with the aid of original photographs.

CALLAHAN P.S. & CHAPIN J.B. 1960: Morphology of the reproductive system and mating in two representative members of the family Noctuidae, Pseudaletia unipuncta and Peridroma margaritosa, with comparison to Heliothis zea. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 53: 763-782Go to original source...

EBERHARD W.G. & RAMIREZ N. 2004: Functional morphology of the male genitalia of four species of Drosophila: failure to confirm both lock and key and male-female conflict predictions. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 97: 1007-1017Go to original source...

EBERHARD W.G., HUBER B.A., RODRIGUEZ R.L., BRICENO S.R.D., SALAS I. & RODRIGUEZ V. 1998: One size fits all? Relationships between the size and degree of variation in genitalia and other body parts in twenty species of insects and spiders. Evolution 52: 415-431Go to original source...

VAHED K. 1998: The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol. Rev. 73: 43-78Go to original source...

VALIMAKI P. & KAITALA A. 2007: Life history tradeoffs in relation to the degree of polyandry and developmental pathway in Pieris napi (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). Oikos 116: 1569-1580Go to original source...

VARGA Z. 1998: Sibling species and species groups in the genus Chersotis Boisduval, 1840 (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae: Noctuinae) with description of two new species. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 44: 341-372

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.